Thursday, September 2, 2010

Gun-Toting Granny Shoots Burglar

The incident happened in Decatur, Alabama and I'd call it one of the cleanest DGUs you could hope for. But it still brings up some questions.

The 69-year old lady kept a loaded gun under her pillow and finally got to use it on a burglar. In most cases, wouldn't the likelihood of accidentally shooting herself or some friend or relative be greater than what happened here? Isn't the chance of a burglar stealing her gun greater than what happened here? Where is the gun when she goes out to church or the market?

This young man was wounded quite seriously. He could easily have been killed. What if his intentions were not to rape and murder but just to steal the microwave and slip back out the door? In that case, and I know we can't know that and the lady was within her rights to defend herself, but if the kid wasn't really a lethal threat, the response was excessive. Am I right?

Wouldn't there be a middle-ground approach too? How about telling the burglar, "I've got a gun on you, turn around and get out." I know that offends all you letter-of-the-law guys who fantasize about just this kind of opportunity, but putting aside all that macho nonsense for a minute, wouldn't it have been better if granny had scared the kid away instead of shooting three times at center of mass?

"...wouldn't it have been better if granny had scared the kid away instead of shooting three times at center of mass?"

Well, that's really subjective, isn't it MikeB?

What if the kid came into the house fully prepared to rape and kill granny? Would giving him a warning be better? He gets the warning, and leaves, going to find a "softer target." The next victim may not be armed. So, instead of one burglar/potential rapist getting shot, we likely would have had a new raped/killed/burgled victim.

I'd much rather have the burglar/potential rapist shot over ANY victim. There's not even a comparison there.

Anonymous provided a link which, although a touching story, didn't clearly say the gun owner got shot because he tried to use diplomacy. It could have been a lack of training and having come up against a more ruthless opponent. If anything it shows the futility of carrying a gun for protection in many cases.

And the question: "Why do you paint us as fantasizing about getting a legal opportunity to shoot?"

> I know that offends all you letter-of-the-law guys who fantasize about just this kind of opportunity...

Perhaps I read too much into "all you" from that statement. My mistake.

> ...[McKown's] lack of training and having come up against a more ruthless opponent. ... futility of carrying a gun for protection in many cases.

> McKown, 38, said he carried a gun and even trained for situations where he could keep innocent people from getting hurt

McKown's failure wasn't of lack of training, as he likely had more than this Alabama grandmother. Nor was it ruthlessness of the opponent that kept Mckown from shooting the attacker.

> “I’m looking at this guy,” McKown said. “He’s a kid. I would have had to shoot him in the head.”

> McKown just wasn’t ready for that. It’s not easy to shoot someone in the head, McKown said. McKown also didn’t want to get in the way of the police if they were handling the situation, and he knew he could get in trouble for brandishing a weapon in the mall.

Hmm... he was more concerned that drawing his weapon in a mall was legal than concerns about the suicidal despot shooting up a mall.